The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1887-01-15

cu6Cb VI huy VI llh pfONiblOub. iDd
was the view which ne took OF the bill
in its general form. Hs thought ther
was great danger that the sections a
TO long and short hsuls would destro,
the export trade OF the country.
might, for insauce, divert the tel
trade, which found its curse from
Asia TO Europe 10 the transcontinen. "a
railroads, to other routes, like tn,
SuFz, The Cape Horn, the Panama o
the Canadian routes. So great was tn,
competition for tina. trade tn II it cou 4
be diverted even by pebble, muct
more by such great res riction as the
bill proposed.
Senator Edmunds What genera
provision would You su gest?
Senator Sherman-I am not pre-
pared to say what words / would sug
gfst, 80 as 10 make provision for tle
export trade, but my general idea ID
that / would make a discrimination
in favor OF the foreign trade. / am
sfraid, and believe that the imme-
date effect OF this bill will be great
disappointment tn all. / fesr that
tho wide reaching influence oil
this section will create a profound
discontent in the very regions repre-
sented by gentlemen who ara earnest
ly advocating this bill. That is my
opinion. l may bs mistaken. / have
no narrow views about the matter.
The conference committee may diyest
the bill Of it, o. jsCtionsbe features.
For that reaso1 a, aud only FIR that rea.
son, shall vots to Iecommit the bill.
II, however, this motion sha be voted
down (as now seems likely, | shall
reserve 10 myself the right 10 decide
whether, on th3 whole, IL ia best to
take the bill, with it's Questionable
features end its many good f5aturcs,
pass 1t into law ard lave II to Tins
TO correct its imperfectiona.
Senator Edmunds argued in favor OF
the conference report. He claimed
that as TO the short and long section
the Conference Committee had merely
changed the phraseology OF the bill as
passed by the Senate, bat had not
changed its subst anita tenor or effect
He offended also the section against
pooling, which, he said, was simply
another phrase for the combination OF
corporate mo 1opolies. But, even
supposng that the eorgons, hydrss
and chimeras dire, which had appeared
IN all manner Of forms in the Senate
Chamber, were some ofnthem to turn
out to bs real he did not believe any
OF them would, Congress might be
safely trusted with remedying the
evil. lit should turn out that the
foreign trade Of Boston was in some
way mi nred, or hampered, or dimin-
ished or crippled by the effect OF this
bill, who would be more ready than
the Senate to rectify this trouble 2 |
But the same kind OF forebodings had
always appeared whenever, in this or
any other country, the legisle-
tive power had been appea ed
to TO reduce admitted evils as
applied to corporations. Some wears
ago, when the Legislature OF Iowa
passed the first granger act, the d rest
calamities had been predicted of it,
but none OF them had ccme to pass,
On the contrary, the railroads Of that
State had prospered more than ever
before; and he believed that when the
great railroad system OF the United
States found itself compelled to sub.
NIT to this legislation it would turn
out to be for lite benefit as well as for
the benefit OF the whole people.
Senator Aldrich argued against the
fourth section Of the bill aud remind.
ed Senator Eimunds that the Iowa |
granger law had been repealed. He |
expressed his profound conviction
that II the fourth section was enacted |
into law 1t would prove disastrous to |
the great interests Of the country. He
believed 1t to bs reaction.
aary In character and rev.
olu ionary OF all sound prin-
ciplee, and its rigid enforcement
would d moralEe aud cripple both in.
ernal and ext rnal oommsrca. He
argued that, while the section did not
mean a uniform rate per ton per mile,
! dld mean u form rate per ton per
station. The fourth section would
work distinct reversal Of that policy
inder which great go nmunities west
II the Nj s'issipDi had grown up. It's
'fiecs had never been more clearly or
prese nted than in an sreu-
nent made before the Ii Cuss Commit.
go on Commerce January 10, 1880. by
gentleman now Senator from 10 wa
Senator WILSON, txtr acts from VIII Gu
10 read. Toe same reasons taas then
'Ktsttd sginst the shor and long b aul
provision, and which were Sd fore bly,
presented by Senator Wilson, ex ed
oday Jltt as strongly and forciby.
Senator Morrill, said he had reached
he conclusion that il was his duty to
'ote to r9commit the bill. He was sat
SIZED that the effect of the fourth Sec
ion would be 10 inc ease the rates of
reight for long hauls, and possibly
hose Tor short hauls also. 1t would
lot require largs percentage t. turn
he balance against the United States,
md II that should occur it would de-
snge not only tbs business OF the
country but the gold and silver cur
ency Of the country.
Senator Wilson, referring to his ar
ument before House COMMITTEES.
sid that he had changed his views
since then. He had made
def lite study f tbs question snca
10 had come to the Sena'e, and pc had
ound iniqu ties in tn rractice of the
a'lioad companies sufIic ont to induce
i'm 10 vote FIR lhe conference report.
Jndtr the present administration of
he ralro I'd system the people of IVA
'era today practically without any
ueh tn ng a. a low rate on long hail
'he farmers OF Iowa we're today, and
al been siuce the railroad companies
nduced the change OF the first trans
oratlon ac,, compelled to pay local {
ates to Chicago. {
Senator Morrill-As l understood {
he bill, II does not interfere at all
nh railroads in the several States.
Senator Wilson-I am only giving
nat as an example of the iniou,tous
onduct Of the railroad com psnies. {
Senator Morrill-That Is not ram
led by this bill. 9
Senator Wllson-No, hut 1 hops that |
ne people OF Iowa will follow this bin ]
nth supplementary action in refer 9
nee TO TRANSFORMATION within tha